Add districts: More legislators would reduce strange election boundaries

Fairbanks Daily News-Miner
February 6, 2010

Editorial

Alaska will always have trouble creating cohesive legislative districts, given the state's lightly populated expanses. However, a Southeast legislator has an idea that would make the boundaries a little less bizarre: Bump up the number of legislators.

Rep. Peggy Wilson, a Republican from the Southeast town of Wrangell , introduced a resolution that would ask voters to amend the Alaska Constitution this fall to expand the size of Alaska 's Legislature, the smallest bicameral institution in the nation. The amendment would add four senators, for a total of 24, and eight representatives, for a total of 48.

Action is most appropriate this year because the U.S. Census Bureau will soon provide us with the numbers with which Alaska 's political lines will be redrawn, as occurs every decade.

Most redistricting plans since statehood have been contentious and challenged in court. Sometimes those challenges were all about party politics, but the strange districts have never helped the state's defense because their boundaries have violated the spirit of the Alaska Constitution.

The Constitution states that districts, as much as possible, should be "contiguous," "compact" and cover an "integrated socio-economic area." But redistricting plans inevitably lump together different regions, economies and cultures.

Consider these examples from the apportionment approved after the 2000 Census:

> The state senator representing neighborhoods along Badger Road, just east of Fairbanks, also represents neighborhoods abutting Palmer city limits, 225 miles to the south, on the northern edge of Anchorage.

> The senator for Kaltag, a Yukon River village west of Fairbanks, also represents villagers in Metlakatla, on Annette Island at Alaska's far southeastern tip - more than 1,000 miles apart.

>Residents along Farmers Loop share a senator with Cantwell, located nearly halfway to Anchorage on the Parks Highway .

There is logic behind this strange situation, despite its apparent absence.

First, of course, each district must have approximately the same number of residents. So rural districts must cover vast areas just to match the numbers of people found in a square mile of Anchorage or Fairbanks .

Second, to reduce the expanse of rural legislative districts, past redistricting commissions have nibbled at the edges of urban areas to secure people. But that strategy has limited potential due in part to federal rules designed to prevent any reduction in representation for Alaska Natives, who generally make up the majority in rural areas. Nibble too much from the cities and the percentage of minorities in the rural districts will fall unacceptably.

Increasing the number of legislative districts would produce more rational boundaries. Adding legislators would cost more money - employees, travel, supplies and office space aren't cheap - but it's time to ask the voters if they think better representation is worth the expense.